Summary
Conservative lawmakers and activists are pushing to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage. Liberty Counsel’s Mat Staver declared, “It’s just a matter of when.”
Some legislators, like Oklahoma Senator David Bullard, are introducing bills to challenge the ruling, while Justices Thomas and Alito have signaled interest in reconsidering it.
Though most Americans support same-sex marriage, the court’s conservative shift is concerning.
The 2022 Respect for Marriage Act ensures federal recognition but does not prevent states from restricting same-sex marriage if Obergefell is overturned.
It’s small-minded. In response to your question.
And I understand that there are economic incentives for people to give up their children for adoption. I also know that there’s economic issues that can make it difficult to raise a child.
And I also know that the way project 2025 is written, this will also target surrogacies.
If you didn’t want to argue, if you didn’t want to debate, why bring it up? Because from here it feels like propaganda to be honest.
Paraphrasing: I’m a gay man who has no interest in raising children. And I’m okay with the far right targeting queer folks because won’t someone think of the women? Also, here’s my left cred and I don’t really want to debate my position.
I mean that’s what you just did right? Do you see how that looks like propaganda?
I’m not sure how to respond to any of your questions. Does the fact that my argument looks like propaganda to you invalidate the argument? Should I have not touched on homophobia at all, despite it being relevant?
As for leftist cred, I’ve said it elsewhere but I’d consider myself only about 50% leftist, and <50% liberal. Sorry to disappoint.
I don’t really understand what’s small-minded. It’s small-minded to say you don’t have the right to raise children if you can’t conceive them? I would think small-mindedness is normally associated with not thinking critically, but given that I changed my mind after – ah sorry, that will sound like propaganda again. I’m not sure how to argue here.
Btw, I’m not okay with project 2025, and I am sure that they will do only harm here. But Hitler painted dogs, and I won’t condemn painting dogs. I’m not going to back down from my belief that the adoption industry is harmful just because project 2025 wants to end adoption. I don’t even want to see adoption ended entirely, as I said; so yeah I don’t agree with project 2025 even in this area. Do I sound less like propaganda now? Or does trying to sound less like propaganda only make it worse.
Edit: Ah, I get it now. You are annoyed that I mentioned I’m gay. Yeah I mean, I try to avoid playing the minority card to win an argument usually. In this case, I thought people might think I’m just being homophobic, and was trying to signal that my beliefs about adoption have nothing to do with adoption in same-sex marriage specifically. But, yeah, point taken.
Anyway, if you want to argue about pointless stuff like this, yeah, sure, I mean, I’ll bite. But if you’re going to be asking me for specific data relating to pregnant people being coerced into giving up their children, I’m really not terribly knowledgeable so you aren’t going to learn much more than what I’ve already said. I mean, I can pester my friends for talking points, I guess.
And finally, edit 2, just because it bothers me: this is lemmy, this is the 2020s, please, stop assuming everyone on the internet is a man.
edit 3: no actually, I’m just stuck on this “propaganda” thing. Is there some magic shibboleth to prove that I’m actually speaking genuinely? Is that not a general-purpose argument against anyone who happens to disagree with you? Or, like, do you personally have such a narrow Overton window that you literally think that anyone who disagrees with you on one (1) matter must be secretly a plant for your furthest political rivals, and the fact that they have included other sentiment which looks like an ally’s only proves it’s a false flag? “Shit – she just said she doesn’t agree with project 2025. She must be lying! Don’t ask how I know.”
I didn’t read your whole comment. I got to the point where you said you don’t want to see adoption end entirely.
And what I want you to understand, is the language in project 2025 is about ending adoption entirely for queer families.
So yes, when you come in to a thread about queer erasure, with concern trolling about women, yeah it’s going to feel like propaganda. And I had to go through your comments to be sure you weren’t a bot.
Because not all adoptions are wrong. To use your painted dog argument, yes some adoption agencies are predatory. Yes capitalism is predatory and it puts women in a shitty position when it comes to adoption. But that doesn’t make all adoptions evil.
Like if me and my partner wanted to be surrogates for a couple that couldn’t have babies, illegal.
That’s some authoritarian bullshit.
And I don’t know where you fall on the left spectrum but I’m a fucking anarchist. I don’t need authoritarians telling me my partner and I can’t carry children for our friends. Fuck that.
So yeah, adoption is way more nuanced than you are making it out. And in your defense of women, you defended queer erasure.
And then played your gay card to justify your shitty take. While throwing queer families under the bus.
For the umpteenth time: I don’t support project 2025! Why would you even think that? I do think adoption in some cases is okay. Being queer has nothing to do with whether or not adoption is okay. Project 2025 has nothing to do with my feelings about adoption. I have mixed feelings about surrogacy, but if it’s for friends I believe it’s okay. I’m not an anarchist anymore, I’m more authoritarian these days – after all, I do think there should be an authority stopping people from polluting the planet and coercing pregnant people into giving up their children.
Can you please remember the human and not assume that someone who disagrees with you is arguing in bad faith and is intentionally using evil tactics or a “concern trolling” bot?
I do not know how to be more clear about me not supporting project 2025, me supporting queer people, and me understanding that not all cases of adoption are the same. Like, I feel like almost every sentence I have said is about one of those things, in support of that thesis. It is as though you are imagining I have said things entirely the opposite of what I have said.
Because of context. Look at where we are having this conversation.
This is a thread that started in your response to my comment about queer erasure in the current administration. Which is running project 2025’s playbook I know adoption isn’t 100% good. It is nuanced though. And the intention of the language in project 2025 is to ban it, to hurt queer families. And a lot of other people will be hurt because of it too.
Again, context.
And I’m not against regulation. Don’t mistake being an anarchist for being a libertarian.
You’re right to swing your fist ends where it hits my face. And that goes basically for all property ownership, because it leads to climate change, pollution, extracting resources from the Earth and killing most of the life on this planet.
Accumulation of wealth is a type of authoritarianism too. Power and coercion over others. And I’m quite aware of how the current world order abuses wealth, and people’s lack of wealth, to do things like extract babies from poor countries.
And yes, I believe that sort of coercion should be stopped. And I believe the most skillful way to stop it is communism, and to end capitalism.
But that’s not what I was referring to when you came in with your whole argument against adoption.
I was referring to my god-given right to make a baby and give it to my friends and allow them to raise it.
If you think coercive of forms of adoption should be banned, I’m right there with you. But that wasn’t the conversation I was having when you walked in.
So again context.
If you care about queer people, quit distracting from the issues.
This is not a distraction; this is in my mind a serious issue of similar weight to queer rights. I think there are a similar number of people who have been coerced into giving up a child for adoption as there are queer people, within an order of magnitude at least. It’s like you’re saying “stop whining about class warfare, it’s distracting from queer rights.”
If the context of the post this is under is distracting you from the issue of adoption rights, feel free to start a thread in another post and ping me. My point was not a top-level comment though.